WHAT IS THE AMD R9 390?
The present scope of AMD cards appears as though it's been intended to specifically rival Nvidia items, and the new Radeon R9 390 is no exemption: this £276 chip clashes with Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970.
It's nothing new for AMD, which has reused a more established part to assemble this new card. With a clock help, more memory and DirectX 12 bolster, this isn't as a matter of course a terrible thing.
AMD RADEON R9 390 – In the engine
The R9 390 makes utilization of the Representation Core Next engineering that has been available in AMD design cards since 2011. All the more particularly, the core inside this new card is named Grenada Ace, and it depends on the Hawaii Ace chip that highlighted in 2013's R9 290. Of course, the R9 390 shares the same engineering as the Hawaii XT core inside the R9 390X, yet with a few changes.
The greatest change comes in the memory office, where the 4GB utilized on the more seasoned card has been multiplied to a beast 8GB. This gets an ascent clock speed from 5,000MHz to 6,000MHz, making this one of the mightiest memory setups found in any card accessible right at this point. The old card's core clock of 947MHz has been enhanced to 1,000MHz, which is just 50MHz behind the pricier R9 390X.
Somewhere else, the card continues as before. It contains 6.2 billion transistors, and the core still components 2,560 stream processors – just 256 behind the R9 390X.
This adds up to a persuading slate regarding particulars when arranged against Nvidia's GTX 970. That card has just 4GB of memory and its 256-piece memory interface is a large portion of the width of AMD's new equipment. With regards to core clock speeds, little separates the two – the GTX 970 is just 50MHz snappier than the R9 390. Not, obviously, that the way these cards are architected makes these numbers straightforwardly tantamount.
While this all looks good for benchmarks, there's one range where the AMD card is prone to fall behind. Before, the more established engineering hasn't fared well against Nvidia with regards to warmth and force utilization, and we can't see that evolving here. This doesn't just mean a higher power bill, it is possible that; it likewise implies there will be less adaptability with regards to accomplice cards.
While the R9 390 is uses so much power that it requires a huge card with a heavy cooler and force hardware - like most top of the line illustrations cards, it must be said - the 970 is accessible in a scaled down size. Just 17cm long it permits you to get the execution of that card in almost a large portion of the space you'd regularly expect, making it perfect for building a littler PC.
Somewhere else, the R9 390 is nothing new. It offers worked in backing for Vulkan and Mantle, close by AMD's TrueAudio Programming interface, and obviously it bolsters FreeSync. ZeroCore innovation is additionally included, which controls the card down into a standby state when the PC is inactive.
AMD RADEON R9 390 – Has Been Analyzed
The R9 390 is consummately equipped for supporting a few screens however our execution tests demonstrate it's in a perfect world suited to use with a solitary screen of up to 2,560 x 1,440 determination.
At 1080p it totally controls through every one of our benchmarks, all of which we keep running at without a doubt the greatest point of interest settings. Its most noticeably awful in-amusement normal was a consequence of 77fps in Combat zone 4, and its best arrangement of results came in Tomb Raider, where it returned least and normal edge rates of 116fps and 150fps.
All things considered, the AMD card's execution certifications were still settled at this humble determination. Its Front line 4 least of 64fps is about 8fps higher than the 970, and its 77fps normal sits easily between the two Nvidia cards. It kept up its lead over the GTX 970 in Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light, outpaced the Nvidia card in both of our hypothetical tests, and even made up for lost time to the GTX 980 in Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor and Tomb Raider.
At the following determination up – 2,560 x 1,440 – the AMD card's amazing execution proceeded. In 3D Imprint's Flame Strike Great test it was anearly 13% quicker than the 970 and just 3% slower than the 980, and in Combat zone 4 its 52fps normal was just three edges behind the GTX 980 and five casings past the GTX 970. Its 74fps normal in BioShock was superior to the GTX 970 as well.
The R9 390 kicked on in Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light. In Crysis its 50fps normal beat both Nvidia cards, and in Metro it did likewise: its 65fps result was two casings behind the GTX 980.
We don't have scores for the GTX 970 in Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor, Tomb Plunderer and Amazing Burglary Auto V, yet the R9 390 kept on performing great against the GTX 980. It was three edges quicker in Shadow of Mordor, just two edges slower in Tomb Looter and ten casings behind in Great Burglary Auto.
The AMD card fell behind just in Batman: Arkham Starting points, where its 61fps least and 88fps normal both missed out to the 68fps and 91fps aftereffects of the GTX 980.
The R9 390 doesn't exactly have the execution we'd need to diversion at 4K, yet it's not far-removed. Its BioShock normal of 38fps is just about playable and again the outcome fell between the two Nvidia cards. It's a comparable story in Batman, where its aftereffect of 56fps is much nearer to our optimal of 60fps. In Metro: Last Light and Tomb Pillager the AMD equipment really beat both Nvidia cards, and it fell between the two chips in the engineered tests.
By and large, then, the AMD card stacked up well against the Nvidia equipment in 4K tests, and its execution looks fair in the more extensive world: it fell beneath the significant 30fps normal figure in just Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3.
In any case, remember that some of our 4K tests saw least casing rates drop underneath 20fps, which implies you'll need to dial back the representation settings to get smooth play on one of these high-determination screens.
The R9 390 performed to a great degree well no matter how you look at it; superior to anything its key opponent in many benchmarks, and it was even ready to contend with the GTX 980 in some of our tests. It's an unmistakable sign that the enormous measure of memory and its 512-piece transport biggerly affect execution than the humble change made to the core's clock speed. On the off chance that any sign is required, simply take a gander at 3D Check: the R9 390's consequence of 10,793 is fundamentally superior to the R9 290's score of 9,379.
It's a decent arrangement of benchmark scores then, yet AMD's more seasoned design demonstrated force hungry over our benchmarks. With the R9 390 introduced, our test rig expended 385W at pinnacle. This is more than 100W higher than the apparatus required with both Nvidia cards – and its inert force utilization was higher as well (102W looked at 83W). In view of putting in 20 hours of gaming a week and abandoning you PC on (i.e. inactive) 12 hours a day that is (generally) around £15 - £30 additional on your power charge a year.
We've no worries about the R9 390's pinnacle temperature of 66°C, however this will shift contingent upon which accurate card you purchase, as various card accomplice producers use distinctive coolers - you can't purchase a R9 390 with an AMD reference cooler.
AMD RADEON R9 390 – Different THINGS TO CONSIDER
The R9 390 has as of now been reinforced by a modest bunch of board accomplice variations. The least expensive we've found are models from PowerColor and XFX, which cost £260 and accompany little overclocks – the previous keeps running at 1,010MHz and the last at 1,050MHz.
Mid-range models cost around £276, and the most costly R9 390 is from the Asus Strix range. It costs £300 and has the company's amazing cooling gear, yet despite everything it doesn't have quite a bit of an overclock: the core is helped to just 1,050MHz.
It's great to have assortment in the business sector, yet AMD's endeavors could not hope to compare to the flexibility on offer from Nvidia. The least expensive GTX 970 costs £250 and highlights just a 10MHz overclock, however there are around two dozen alternatives accessible with costs going up to £320.
A large number of them have much more aspiring overclocks as a result of the more productive Maxwell engineering: that £320 cost will net you an Inno3D model that ups the core from 1,050MHz to 1,228MHz and the memory from 1,050MHz to 1,280MHz, and a £300 model from EVGA runs the core at 1,216MHz.
In addition, obviously, there are those small variations on the GTX 970, which are to all goals and purposes generally as quick as the bigger renditions.
For AMD's full-length cards, you'll have to discover a case sufficiently long to oblige, and it should associate with eight-and six-pin power connectors so as to capacity.
Generally the cards matchup genuinely well regarding general components, with both including a few alternatives with the expectation of complimentary amusements, both supporting their particular G-Sync/FreeSync tech and both offering the key advantages of DX12.
Decision
Given the structural similitude between the R9 390 and its greater, X-marked sibling, it's nothing unexpected that the account of AMD's most recent card is natural.
The R9 390 demonstrated quicker than the GTX 970 in the dominant part of our benchmarks, and even got the GTX 980 in a modest bunch of tests – however that execution triumph came at the expense of mammoth force utilization, and you can't get the 390 in a small scale variant like you can with the GTX 970.
In case you're not excessively worried by force utilization, and need a card where execution is scratch then the R9 390 is the one to purchase. This is particularly valid in case you're building a conventional tower framework and need the future-sealing gave by 8GB of memory. So, Nvidia's opponent remains a contender for littler, low-control machines where outline rates aren't as crucial.
AMD RADEON R9 390 SPECIFICIATION
The present scope of AMD cards appears as though it's been intended to specifically rival Nvidia items, and the new Radeon R9 390 is no exemption: this £276 chip clashes with Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970.
It's nothing new for AMD, which has reused a more established part to assemble this new card. With a clock help, more memory and DirectX 12 bolster, this isn't as a matter of course a terrible thing.
AMD RADEON R9 390 – In the engine
The greatest change comes in the memory office, where the 4GB utilized on the more seasoned card has been multiplied to a beast 8GB. This gets an ascent clock speed from 5,000MHz to 6,000MHz, making this one of the mightiest memory setups found in any card accessible right at this point. The old card's core clock of 947MHz has been enhanced to 1,000MHz, which is just 50MHz behind the pricier R9 390X.
Somewhere else, the card continues as before. It contains 6.2 billion transistors, and the core still components 2,560 stream processors – just 256 behind the R9 390X.
This adds up to a persuading slate regarding particulars when arranged against Nvidia's GTX 970. That card has just 4GB of memory and its 256-piece memory interface is a large portion of the width of AMD's new equipment. With regards to core clock speeds, little separates the two – the GTX 970 is just 50MHz snappier than the R9 390. Not, obviously, that the way these cards are architected makes these numbers straightforwardly tantamount.
While this all looks good for benchmarks, there's one range where the AMD card is prone to fall behind. Before, the more established engineering hasn't fared well against Nvidia with regards to warmth and force utilization, and we can't see that evolving here. This doesn't just mean a higher power bill, it is possible that; it likewise implies there will be less adaptability with regards to accomplice cards.
While the R9 390 is uses so much power that it requires a huge card with a heavy cooler and force hardware - like most top of the line illustrations cards, it must be said - the 970 is accessible in a scaled down size. Just 17cm long it permits you to get the execution of that card in almost a large portion of the space you'd regularly expect, making it perfect for building a littler PC.
Somewhere else, the R9 390 is nothing new. It offers worked in backing for Vulkan and Mantle, close by AMD's TrueAudio Programming interface, and obviously it bolsters FreeSync. ZeroCore innovation is additionally included, which controls the card down into a standby state when the PC is inactive.
AMD RADEON R9 390 – Has Been Analyzed
The R9 390 is consummately equipped for supporting a few screens however our execution tests demonstrate it's in a perfect world suited to use with a solitary screen of up to 2,560 x 1,440 determination.
At 1080p it totally controls through every one of our benchmarks, all of which we keep running at without a doubt the greatest point of interest settings. Its most noticeably awful in-amusement normal was a consequence of 77fps in Combat zone 4, and its best arrangement of results came in Tomb Raider, where it returned least and normal edge rates of 116fps and 150fps.
All things considered, the AMD card's execution certifications were still settled at this humble determination. Its Front line 4 least of 64fps is about 8fps higher than the 970, and its 77fps normal sits easily between the two Nvidia cards. It kept up its lead over the GTX 970 in Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light, outpaced the Nvidia card in both of our hypothetical tests, and even made up for lost time to the GTX 980 in Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor and Tomb Raider.
At the following determination up – 2,560 x 1,440 – the AMD card's amazing execution proceeded. In 3D Imprint's Flame Strike Great test it was anearly 13% quicker than the 970 and just 3% slower than the 980, and in Combat zone 4 its 52fps normal was just three edges behind the GTX 980 and five casings past the GTX 970. Its 74fps normal in BioShock was superior to the GTX 970 as well.
The R9 390 kicked on in Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light. In Crysis its 50fps normal beat both Nvidia cards, and in Metro it did likewise: its 65fps result was two casings behind the GTX 980.
We don't have scores for the GTX 970 in Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor, Tomb Plunderer and Amazing Burglary Auto V, yet the R9 390 kept on performing great against the GTX 980. It was three edges quicker in Shadow of Mordor, just two edges slower in Tomb Looter and ten casings behind in Great Burglary Auto.
The AMD card fell behind just in Batman: Arkham Starting points, where its 61fps least and 88fps normal both missed out to the 68fps and 91fps aftereffects of the GTX 980.
The R9 390 doesn't exactly have the execution we'd need to diversion at 4K, yet it's not far-removed. Its BioShock normal of 38fps is just about playable and again the outcome fell between the two Nvidia cards. It's a comparable story in Batman, where its aftereffect of 56fps is much nearer to our optimal of 60fps. In Metro: Last Light and Tomb Pillager the AMD equipment really beat both Nvidia cards, and it fell between the two chips in the engineered tests.
By and large, then, the AMD card stacked up well against the Nvidia equipment in 4K tests, and its execution looks fair in the more extensive world: it fell beneath the significant 30fps normal figure in just Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3.
In any case, remember that some of our 4K tests saw least casing rates drop underneath 20fps, which implies you'll need to dial back the representation settings to get smooth play on one of these high-determination screens.
The R9 390 performed to a great degree well no matter how you look at it; superior to anything its key opponent in many benchmarks, and it was even ready to contend with the GTX 980 in some of our tests. It's an unmistakable sign that the enormous measure of memory and its 512-piece transport biggerly affect execution than the humble change made to the core's clock speed. On the off chance that any sign is required, simply take a gander at 3D Check: the R9 390's consequence of 10,793 is fundamentally superior to the R9 290's score of 9,379.
It's a decent arrangement of benchmark scores then, yet AMD's more seasoned design demonstrated force hungry over our benchmarks. With the R9 390 introduced, our test rig expended 385W at pinnacle. This is more than 100W higher than the apparatus required with both Nvidia cards – and its inert force utilization was higher as well (102W looked at 83W). In view of putting in 20 hours of gaming a week and abandoning you PC on (i.e. inactive) 12 hours a day that is (generally) around £15 - £30 additional on your power charge a year.
We've no worries about the R9 390's pinnacle temperature of 66°C, however this will shift contingent upon which accurate card you purchase, as various card accomplice producers use distinctive coolers - you can't purchase a R9 390 with an AMD reference cooler.
AMD RADEON R9 390 – Different THINGS TO CONSIDER
The R9 390 has as of now been reinforced by a modest bunch of board accomplice variations. The least expensive we've found are models from PowerColor and XFX, which cost £260 and accompany little overclocks – the previous keeps running at 1,010MHz and the last at 1,050MHz.
Mid-range models cost around £276, and the most costly R9 390 is from the Asus Strix range. It costs £300 and has the company's amazing cooling gear, yet despite everything it doesn't have quite a bit of an overclock: the core is helped to just 1,050MHz.
It's great to have assortment in the business sector, yet AMD's endeavors could not hope to compare to the flexibility on offer from Nvidia. The least expensive GTX 970 costs £250 and highlights just a 10MHz overclock, however there are around two dozen alternatives accessible with costs going up to £320.
A large number of them have much more aspiring overclocks as a result of the more productive Maxwell engineering: that £320 cost will net you an Inno3D model that ups the core from 1,050MHz to 1,228MHz and the memory from 1,050MHz to 1,280MHz, and a £300 model from EVGA runs the core at 1,216MHz.
In addition, obviously, there are those small variations on the GTX 970, which are to all goals and purposes generally as quick as the bigger renditions.
For AMD's full-length cards, you'll have to discover a case sufficiently long to oblige, and it should associate with eight-and six-pin power connectors so as to capacity.
Generally the cards matchup genuinely well regarding general components, with both including a few alternatives with the expectation of complimentary amusements, both supporting their particular G-Sync/FreeSync tech and both offering the key advantages of DX12.
Decision
Given the structural similitude between the R9 390 and its greater, X-marked sibling, it's nothing unexpected that the account of AMD's most recent card is natural.
The R9 390 demonstrated quicker than the GTX 970 in the dominant part of our benchmarks, and even got the GTX 980 in a modest bunch of tests – however that execution triumph came at the expense of mammoth force utilization, and you can't get the 390 in a small scale variant like you can with the GTX 970.
In case you're not excessively worried by force utilization, and need a card where execution is scratch then the R9 390 is the one to purchase. This is particularly valid in case you're building a conventional tower framework and need the future-sealing gave by 8GB of memory. So, Nvidia's opponent remains a contender for littler, low-control machines where outline rates aren't as crucial.
AMD RADEON R9 390 SPECIFICIATION
| GRAPHICS CHIPSET | |
| Video Chipset | AMD Radeon R9 390 |
| Core Clock Speed | 1000MHz |
| MEMORY | |
| Installed Video Memory | 8GB |
| Effective Memory Clock Speed | 6000MHz |
| Network AND Extra Components | |
| Interface Connection | PCI-E 3.0 |
| Highlights | |
| Type | Graphics |
So, that's all about AMD RADEON R9 390 Review. Hopefully the content can show you information when you looking for.
https://amdgalery.blogspot.co.id/
0 comments:
Post a Comment